Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Crowlogic]

That's nothing but a lie, crow. We can start with the fact that I don't believe BH wore the suit.

BTW, it's toeing, not towing.

I don't believe BH wore the suit either. I stated before that IMNSHO there wwere more professionals involved than cowboys playing monkey. Towing the line is incidently interchanged with toeing the line. I tend to like the "towing" since it conjours up images of ropes attached to monolithic devices that may or may not being worth the effort of the hauling.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Nice try, Astro....but when I used "T-Rex sightings" in my post, I was refering to a T-Rex, the BIG and scary kind...as in.....If you're not interested in intelligently discussing how a sighting claim can be judged to be "far-fetched" or not, that's fine. Just don't pretend to be, Astro.

Are you displaying a degree of (gasp) skepticism? We were discussing "plausibility" before investigation. As far as I am concerned, the sightings of little t-rex's is just as good as those bigfoot sightings you talk about as increasing the "plausibility" of bigfoot. You seem to have a problem with that though.

You still refuse to answer my question or at least demonstrate your ability to carefully weigh and evaluate the evidence of the PGF. I really would like to see how you carefully analyzed the film to conclude that it is a real creature and not simply a guy in a suit.

 

[Bill Munns]

clayflingythingy: #13460

"How does the suit making industry in Hollywood work? If POTA was done and a guy came in and wanted a quickie suit, cobbled together from pieces parts, would you really blow him off if he had hard cash American money in hand that you didn't have to report to Uncle?

What I am driving at is how much "quality" work was there for a suit guy in late 1960's Hollywood? Was it feast or famine? How many "big time" movie productions each year needed a suit guy? How much competition was there for the work? IOW, would hard cash look inviting to a suit guy even tho he had just finished POTA, especially since the movie hadn't been released yet?

Would cash, that perhaps went unreported to Uncle, look inviting?

Perhaps Dfoot and Bill Munns will have some perspective to offer on this."

As a general rule, there are "staff" salaries, and freelance rates. A staff salary is lower because there is an implied promise of continual work. So a makeup department head at a studio might hold a staff job, and be assured a paycheck all year around.

A freelancer may work 1/2 or 1/3 or even less of a year, so a freelance rate tends to be much higher than a staff salary, often two to three times what the person actually needs to live on. The idea is the higher rate covers them for the unemployment that follows the short term freelance job.

The real lucky part is when you get a long term freelance gig, and can earn enough to literally "do nothing" and pay your bills for months after the job ends. John was on POTA for over a year. He might reasonably have expected to finish the job with 6 months income in the bank.

Now consider that in his IMDB resume,, which does list his work, including some uncredited jobs on single TV episodes, there is virtually no credit for two years from POTA (the first one) in 1968 to the POTA (sequel) in 1970. So he's got a big gap of no credited work of any kind between those two films. Industry assumption would be he came off of the first POTA with enough money in the bank to coast for at least 6 months, maybe even a year. Then he went back to work on Part 2 for another year, and that fills the 2 year space from the two movies. A single $700 suit wouldn't exactly carry him for 6 months to a year. It was probably a weeks pay for his POTA salary (estimating here)

Similarly, Rick Baker came off of the 76 King Kong with enough money in the bank to go from a two bedroom apartment to a nice spacious home more than twice as large.

John lived in a modest house in a quaint neighborhood of Burbank (on Myers Street). He didn't "live large", as some Hollywood pretentious people did (and as a comparative example, Stan Winston was famous for living large, once he made a name for himself). So John's expenses weren't particularly draining, as much as we know.

LTC had a comment about Spock's ears costing $25. That's the cost of one foam latex run to make a cast, once molds are made. And people in the industry value friendships, and do simple favors for friends that they may likely not do for strangers. The prosthetics makeup community was a circle of friends, essentially, so John doing a favor to the Trek makeup people is reasonable, at cost (running foam to make some ears is about an hour's work) but would not likely extend the same consideration to strangers outside the industry.

Bill

 

[kitakaze]

Sweaty, I trust your counter-arguments are coming well. "Sure, I can." was sincere, right?

 

[Bill Munns]

Clay:

Just a followup to my reply to your questions, realizing I missed part of your concern.

What I explained above was "conventional industry opinion", general assumptions we make about the industry and people in it, overall.

But who takes hard cash "under the table" for side things is a very personal issue in that every person has their own rules, their own limits of when they will and when they won't.

An example: When I started doing makeup in 1969, my first job was the makeup show for tourists on the Universal Studios Tours. Two guys worked the show each day, one doing the makeup, one explaining the work to the audience. We usually traded off alternating makeup or talk, during the day, and the makeup was a beauty makeup because Universal wanted to sell beauty cosmetics to the tourists as a merchandising asset.. Occasionally, a tourist couple comes in and the husband is used to buying favors, so he goes to a makeup artist and quietly says "Here's $10, if you'll pick my wife from the audience for the show". Some of the makeup guys I worked with took the cash and picked the designated wife and everybody was happy. I was offered the money once or twice, and I didn't take it. Just me, my personal ethic, I wasn't selling out my right to chose someone from the audience I felt would benefit most from being the demo subject.

Same thing when a stranger approaches you with cash and a quickie job. Some people grab anything, others are selective, and some say no to anything they think is not what they want to do.

I didn't know John well enough to know how he'd react to a cash offer for throwing something together. People here like to point out to various things he's reported to do, but they fail to consider all the circumstances that were actually affecting the man's personal decision. I estimate ideas with some industry established "conventional wisdom", but who takes cash on the side, and for what, is a personal thing we can only speculate about, and probably never prove, in the absence of the man himself testifying.

Bill

 

[Bill Munns]

deleted double post

 

[SweatyYeti]

Sweaty, I trust your counter-arguments are coming well. "Sure, I can." was sincere, right?

I meant what I said, kitty. I'll respond to your post as soon as I can.

 

[captain koolaid]

Nice try, Astro....but when I used "T-Rex sightings" in my post, I was refering to a T-Rex, the BIG and scary kind...as in.....

Length - 40 feet (12.4 m) long
Height - 15 to 20 feet (4.6 to 6 m) tall
Weight - 5 to 7 tons

Juvenile, dude. Juvenile.
Not a bear. Not a Bear. Not a Bear.*BONK*

This is from an article about your supposed "T-Rex in Utah"......

Link to article:

http://web.ksl.com/dump/news/cc/local/leapin_lizards.php


Again....the "plausibility" of any cryptid animal's existence depends on a mulitude of factors. Physical size is one of those factors.

Are there people claiming to have seen 20-foot tall, 40-foot long dinosaurs stomping around the Pacific Northwest, or any other part of North America??
If so....how many are claiming this?

If you're not interested in intelligently discussing how a sighting claim can be judged to be "far-fetched" or not, that's fine. Just don't pretend to be, Astro.

Rexy is, in all probobility, a seasonal, or migratory dino. Don't forget about continental drift and land bridges. The Carnosaurs and Tyrannosaurids are fierce, but elusive. You can't fool them with trail cameras and the like. It is possible that they have developed super-brains, in the 65 million years or so or evolution, and have learned to avoid the thunderstick men. Regardless of what the dino-skeptics want you to believe, they are being sighted.

What about all the evidence? Doesn't it carry weight? Probobility and all that. So if the total number of the mentally ill who report Bigfoot, outnumbers the total number who see Rex, are we to rule out Dinosaurs? That's just silly. What about the evidence? They existed, they are in the fossil record. There are actual tracks of living juvenile Theropods (they are not as clever as the mature ones, and have yet to adopt evidence-dodging techniques). There are accounts throughout history of human encounters with living Theropods, they are in tribal lore.

Then there's the JPF. Spielberg and Johnston were a pair of maverick dino-doco filmakers who got lucky 3 times (much better than the 1-hit wonders RP and BG). Mind you, a Spinosaur in the New World seems odd, but... land bridges.

Why do you have to be such a negative Nellie?

 

[SweatyYeti]

You still refuse to answer my question or at least demonstrate your ability to carefully weigh and evaluate the evidence of the PGF. I really would like to see how you carefully analyzed the film to conclude that it is a real creature and not simply a guy in a suit.

ONE more time, Astro...I haven't concluded that Patty is a real Bigfoot....only that it is the more likely explanation.

Do you understand the difference?


As for me demonstrating how I've weighed the evidence in the film...I've posted several things on this thread, and the "Simple Challenge for Bigfoot Supporters" thread...that are analysis of the film.

One example is an analysis of Patty's fingers bending. It's in this thread, I believe.
Since Patty's arms are a bit longer than your average human's arms....

...AND, her fingers clearly move.....wiggle wiggle....

...I think that the most likely explanation for this combination of features is that Patty is a real, live, Bigfeetsus. It doesn't require the use of a mechanical gadget in a suit...which, btw...Bob "What's my story today?" Heironimus has never made mention of.

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

You sure they were auctioning stuff in 1966?

Stuff? Yes. Star Trek stuff? Now I'm not so sure. Originally, I was going to comment that the link I had provided in my last post noted that an ad for the auction appeared in the 1966 yearbook issue of Famous Monsters of Filmland. Curious, I decided to try to see if I could find some other information about the auction online. The way the information is structured on this page seems to say that the auction occurred before "Star Trek" started filming. It also notes that Wah Chang did some work on Planet of the Apes after his services were no longer requested sometime around the middle of "Star Trek" season 2. The page theorizes that budget cuts and/or Paramount buying out Desilu were the reason for them no longer wanting his services.

This site claims the Gorn head was sold in 2006. Following one of the links given there led me a site that lets you search for what props got sold during recent auctions. There, I discovered a listing that said a complete Gorn suit was sold at a 2003 auction. This seems to indicate that more than one costume existed (or that more than one mask was used on a single costume). I then tried searching for props from the Galileo Seven episode and discovered that the mold for the Tauren mask was sold in 2003.

With no definative proof that the materials Dfoot suspects could have been used in the construction of the Patterson suit were not available, auctions can't be used to oppose (or fully support) that angle at this time. Not knowing exactly when Star Trek props first started being auctioned and/or sold off (in either Star Trek-themed events or just general TV or sci-fi events) is also a factor.

Unless it can be shown that the Project Unlimited auction ad mentions Star Trek props, I'm leaning heavily towards my being wrong about the auction involving "Star Trek" props.

The show was in its first season, so they'd want to keep costume/prop inventory to recycle for later shows. They usually auction stuff after a series closes.

True, but there are always exceptions. For example, this page notes that the BBC used to throw away props used for "Dr. Who" after they finished filming.

Also, all this talk of how special effects types take jobs reminds me to ask this question to the other forum-goers: didn't Drewbot once post a link to the website of a special effects company that would be willing to do a Patty suit recreation attempt (provided that a budget range was specified and provided)?

 

[clayflingythingy]

Bill,

Thanks for the replies. A followup question if I may. Let's take John and his work on POTA off the table for a moment.

Would you agree with this statement:

There existed in 1967 Hollywood fx suit guys to whom $700 (we should keep in mind WP's admonition it may have been more) "under the table" would be hard to resist, if they could build Patty from cast off parts from other suits?

I realize that is an answer we can't really know. But since you are in the industry I would assume you would have knowledge or hear rumours of any such practices that go on today. If such transactions happen today I feel reasonably confident they were happening in the 1960s. Perhaps the 1960s were more freewheeling than what happens today even?

And this may also help explain why no one has ever come forward and confessed to making the suit. Perhaps the actual suit maker built the suit by cribbing material from his boss and built it while he was supposed to be working on other projects.

 

[Dfoot]

Wow... I stay away from this place for one day and it starts to turn into the BFF. Cuz' that's the kind of thinking I see going on right now.

William Parcher -- Here's that larger sized Patterson contract you ordered. Suitable for framing or proving Green was wrong when he said Roger didn't have enough money to rent a suit.
http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm134/Dfoot/rogerRADFORDcontractLARGE.jpg

Bill Munns -- I swear sometimes when I read what you write I think we don't even work in the same industry. It would have been no problem at all for Roger to rent a cannibalized suit from these guys for that amount.

Roger was repped by WALTER HURST. He was the most powerful entertainment lawyer in town. He represented everyone from Sonny & Cher to Dean Martin. He also repped some of the country and rock talents like Merritt. DeAtley paid for these services for Roger.

Roger stayed with music legend GENE VINCENT and long time friend and actor ROSS HAGEN. Hagen starred at the time on a top television show I'm sure you know well. Hagen has worked several times with a director pal of mine and he says Ross knew Roger very well and did the vocals for Roger's Bigfoot recordings. Roger was no stranger to show biz.

When Roger and Merritt joined the military it was Roger who went into the entertainment side of things. He never stopped wanting to be a part of the entertainment world.

Yes, WAH MING CHANG and JANOS worked with Chambers on POTA (and the sequels). That doesn't mean they didn't also work on LOST IN SPACE, VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA, and STAR TREK at the same time. Chambers was the one busy as hell for a while, but he was never too busy to lend his advice for free to his friends putting together a suit or anything else.

FOR EXAMPLE: VERN LANGDON worked for Chambers on POTA. He ran DON POST where everyone got lots of items to use with their monster suits from time to time. Vern will tell you that he thinks Patty isn't good enough to be a real Chamber's job. Everyone knows this. But that's not what it was. Chambers was involved in helping put together this thing in a way very similar to the way he helped put together the MINNESOTA ICEMAN for FRANK HANSEN.

VERN LANGDON is alive and well. He'll tell you that HANSEN called him at Don Post Studio and wanted an Iceman exhibit (this was an old carny thing done all the time for years). Langdon sent him to Chambers. Chambers sent Hansen to HOWARD BALL and advised on how to do certain things.

LANGDON used to have a name for their group. He called them "funsters." They were big time into practical jokes.
http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm134/Dfoot/Chambers-Post-Langdon.jpg
That's CHAMBERS in the top photo on the far left with POST and VERN LANGDON on the far right. They were constantly churning out all of the materials you would need for a Patty type creature. Patty didn't come from there but her hands and hair may well have started out there.

Just as OPTIC NERVE had a red ape suit hanging up and they stuck old black feet on the guy wearing it, so they had in those days TONS of hair fabric, monster suits, wetsuits and ape suits laying around. All they would need to do is use the WAH CHANG HEAD and make some feet and they've got it. It would take no time at all as the parts are there staring them in the face.

If you talk to BOB BURNS again I'm sure he can tell you that WAH was shocked to learn people cared about STAR TREK stuff. He had been giving it away to other creature fx guys and tossing it in the garbage bin. The studios in those days had no use for such things. They could've cared less.

Wah re-used (cannibalized) various heads and suit parts from Outer Limits for Trek and other shows until they had no use or space for them. That's all. Collecting wasn't even thought about at the time.

I've even given stuff away from the newer STAR TREK shows I've worked on and we know how big that is now among fans. They pay tens of thousands for such things. But I, like Chambers and Wah, happen to think it's pretty cool to be able to put a smile on a real fan's face with some salt shaker once used as a medical device.

Also, I know who put the hair on PATTY. He's still alive. But like Janos' widow he won't talk in public about this hoax. I've tried.

They cobbled together a hoax suit for a guy with a death sentence and now his widow gets whatever funds it brings in. To them that's just fine and that's how they plan on leaving it.

During the POTA sequel a kid from the mail room stopped by the set. Chambers was working on a scene with his friends JANOS PROHASKA and WAH MING CHANG. Chambers was too busy to help the kid at that moment, but he recommended he call his pal VERN LANGDON at Don Post Studio and he'd have Vern help him get an ape suit for his first movie that the kid's relatives were putting the money up for.

The kid (JOHN LANDIS) was introduced by LANGDON to another kid that had been coming down buying stuff at DON POST. His name was BAKER.

Though busy working on another POTA flick Chambers took the time to go over to the kid's set and play an acting role. He also gave the kid a head from POTA to use (something he did often as he had so many).

Chambers made zero dollars for all of this. Here he is in that movie:
http://s295.photobucket.com/albums/mm134/Dfoot/?action=view&current=CHAMBERSVOCALIZATION.flv

I'm sure you know how much scale is for a second unit director/stunt coordinator. It's pretty decent. Yet two weeks ago I was working on a presentation for actor Michael Jai White and one week ago I tweaked my knee helping actress Kelly Hu make a get-out-and-vote promotion. I made exactly zero dollars for these. Why would I do such a thing? Because I wanted to. It was fun.

Funsters do their thing because they like it. Even when they are busy with other things. It's no big deal for Chambers to stop over and lend his services when the funsters are sticking a suit together for what today would be $4000. That's easy fun money, and besides, who will ever see that thing anyhow?

After POTA Chambers went to the Philippines and worked on a Filipino ultra-low budget piece of crap. Why would he do that? Because he wanted a free vacation all expenses paid.

People need to get real and stop all this jibber-jabber about the "make-up world" and what things cost. It's silly. They did this kind of crap job all the time. Sometimes for free.

Really Bill... the last time I saw LANDIS he still had his bungalow over at Universal. If he's still there then just drop by and press the buzzer on his gate. Tell the lady you are a top level make-up man and you want to question him regarding Chambers. But please don't start telling him you think that might not be a suit in PG film. That's when you'll see him press the little red button under his desk.

Here's a true life creature fx story for you: (I can assure you this is accurate as I was there) Big time producer is sweating the creature fx guys in our meetings about the custom monster suit they are building. They reply with intricate details of temperatures, structural integrity, all sorts of jargon to keep the guy at bay. They sound like Bill Munns on ten cups of coffee. The producer tells his superiors that the suit is coming and tries to repeat the reasons for the delay....

The truth was that the suit wasn't being built. It already was built. It was in Canada on another job and they were making bank from the rental. Our schedule was rearranged because we had to wait for the big monster suit to be perfected. Finally during the last days of our shoot the big monster arrives. They tell the producer how they slaved all night to make it just in time with this intricate device. They charged him nearly $100,000 total for this. I was stunned. The producer told me it was worth it because it was "one of a kind." Woo Boy.

That's Hollywood folks (and Canada). Buncha' funsters at work I'll bet.

Of course, no one could ever build Patty. She's just too natural. (Naturally hokey that is)

 

[Bill Munns]

Clay:

"Thanks for the replies. A followup question if I may. Let's take John and his work on POTA off the table for a moment.

Would you agree with this statement:

There existed in 1967 Hollywood fx suit guys to whom $700 (we should keep in mind WP's admonition it may have been more) "under the table" would be hard to resist, if they could build Patty from cast off parts from other suits?

I realize that is an answer we can't really know. But since you are in the industry I would assume you would have knowledge or hear rumours of any such practices that go on today. If such transactions happen today I feel reasonably confident they were happening in the 1960s. Perhaps the 1960s were more freewheeling than what happens today even?"

Suits were rarely built on spec, more often for paid purposes. Janos is probably one of the few to make his own on spec and rent them out with him wearing them. So generally, the suits built had specific purposes. And the employer (studio, TV producer) in theory owns what was made for them. Now we have "reversion clauses" whereby ownership reverts to the makeup people for their shop showcases, but then, generally the suits made were owned by the studio.

So a guy selling off spare suit parts was theoretically "stealing" from the studio. $700 might have been good money for a low level guy to make, but there is the issue of "did the low level guy have any right to even sell the stuff?" That seems to make it less likely. So you sort of have to trace back the whole issue of who owned the suit parts to begin with, and did the rightful owner make the sale?

Obviously, a makeup guy could make suits and keep the parts, and sell them. But it wasn't until the Star Wars and Trekkie convention movement where you saw lots of people fabricating suits and costumes for non-industry use, so the chances of some "outsider" wanting to buy suit parts was rare, to be sure, in 1967. In 1967, most "rightful owners " of suits were the studios or producers who paid for them. They tended to keep these assets in case they want to make a sequel to whatever movie the suit was for (Like "The Creature from the Black Lagoon. Universal owned the suits.)

As for privately made replicas, today, you can buy a perfect replica Robbie the Robot suit (from Forbidden Planet), but back then, it was unheard of to get such replicas.

Back in 1967, Union guys with the studio (makeup local 706) were forbidden to train non-union people (anyone not in the union apprentice program) so they tended to keep the professional skills for masks, suits, etc. in a rather tight circle. Rumors abound of makeup people taking cash to train somebody in their garage were common (the rumor), so I suppose there may have been some people trained that way. Actual schools training people in makeup, masks, prosthetics, etc. didn't appear until about 1971, because I was one of the first teachers of movie makeup, masks, etc. at the first school of it's kind in 1971 and onward from there.

As far as outsiders, there were lots of readers of Famous Monsters of Filmland dreaming of becomming "monster makers", Rick Baker being the most successful starting that way.

So in 1967, the line between "studio people" and "outside newcomers" was more black and white than today, where all shades of grey exist (all levels of skill and degree of professionalism.)

"And this may also help explain why no one has ever come forward and confessed to making the suit. Perhaps the actual suit maker built the suit by cribbing material from his boss and built it while he was supposed to be working on other projects."

When you work for others in a makeup lab, chances are you never can make anything the boss doesn't know you're working on, or keeps track of. Maybe something small you could put in your pocket (some Spock ears, maybe) but not suit parts. Too much material needed to make them, so the parts are well accounted for.

Bill

 

[Astrophotographer]

ONE more time, Astro...I haven't concluded that Patty is a real Bigfoot....only that it is the more likely explanation.

I am not going to fight over choice of words on this. You seem to think it is important. Let's say you have determined that bigfoot is a more likely explanation. Is that correct?

One example is an analysis of Patty's fingers bending. It's in this thread, I believe.

So what? You say it looks like they bend. What does that have to do with it? When I wear a glove, my fingers bend. There is nothing in that image that could not be accomplished by a suit with gloves.

Since Patty's arms are a bit longer than your average human's arms....

I suggest you prove that Patty's arms are a bit longer than the average human because I don't see it. Start with this image (frame 72 I believe) of the fingers moving, where the arm is essentially straight. The copy I used was a 325X400 pixel shot found at http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dtrapp/patty2.jpg:

The arm is not as long as you suggest. If you use the foot for a standard, which is supposedly 14.5" long (based on the footprints found), you can figure roughly how long the arm is. The foot is roughly 78 pixels in length. The arm is 140 pixels from the armpit to the finger tips. If you do the math, you will discover the arm is roughly 26". That is not much different than an average human arm (I measure 30" but I am 6 foot 4 inches tall). If you want to use the "shoulder", which is more difficult to ascertain because of Patty's slouch, it is roughly 190 pixels. That equates to 35". My shoulder to finger tips is about 36". Again, it is not that much different than the average humans arms.

BTW, with these values, Patty is 336 pixels tall or roughly 62.5". Patty is slouching and not standing up straight. When I attempted to reproduce the pose myself, I lost about a 6-12" in height. As a result, Patty could be roughly 6 feet tall if it stood erect.

These numbers are based on the data available in the film. There are difficulties in such measurements that can produce errors but it is a starting point for a discussion on analysis. I am not sure the foot is 14.5 inches long but that is what the evidence obtained at the site tells us. Even if you throw out the 14.5" standard and use a height to arm length ratio, the numbers still look like a normal human. My ratio is roughly 2.5 (76/30) or 2.1 (76/36). Slouching/bent knees Patty is 336/140 = 2.4 or 336/190 = 1.8. If Patty stands erect and gains an extra 20-60 pixels, then the value becomes more in line with my ratio.

Perhaps you can show me how you figured the arms were too long.

 

[Bill Munns]

Dfoot:

Thank you for all that wonderful "funster" stuff. I can match you story for story about how silly the busines can get, but that really doesn't get us anywhere.

"Also, I know who put the hair on PATTY. He's still alive. But like Janos' widow he won't talk in public about this hoax. I've tried. "

How do you know he isn't hoaxing you? Just curious.



Bill

 

[Bill Munns]

Dfoot:

A small favor to ask, if I may.

Given I readily concede what I see in the PG film mystifies me, and you assure me and all here in the forum that you know with certainty the facts of the suit, could you please just answer me a few questions, so satisfy my knawing curiosity?

1. How many people were there at the filming to assist the person in the suit, as far as help dressing and grooming the suit?

2. Where exactly does the head mask split from the body suit? Could you diagram it on a frame of Patty for all of us to see? And explaining how the closure was secured (to hold the mask edge secure to the body suit part)would be more than wonderful, if you can answer that as well.

Thanks,

Bill

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

http://www.bfro.net/images/whatis/figures/Fig. 5 with caption.jpg

According to post #51 in this thread:

There's also a picture of a knuckle print cast Freeman thought was "toes" showing flexion creases.

I love it. Freeman brings in a toe casting and is told that it's a knuckle print. I suspect this decision was made to beef up the case for Bigfoot being Gigantopithecus. Although it is odd to make a case for Gigantopithecus being bipedal in order to link it to Bigfoot and yet present "evidence" suggesting that it's quadrapedal...

http://www.bfro.net/images/whatis/figures/Fig. 10 with caption.jpg

I find the resemblence of the supposed half-foot print and this Himalayan black bear track to be striking. I should note that the Himalayan bear track picture has some grass covering a toe and that it would probably be much easier to see the resemblence if the bear picture was “flipped.” Granted, I don't know for sure how similar or different the paws and tracks of Himalayan and American black bears look, but it wouldn't surprise me if they were similar. These bear track pictures, along with this site, make me suspect that the above "Bigfoot prints" are that of a bear.

http://www.bfro.net/images/whatis/figures/Fig. 8 with caption.jpg

I've never seen that "Patterson" casting either. But the reference to it being 14.5 inches made me remember the casting sold on this website. They claim that it's from the Patterson film site and that it's 16 inches! If this is authentic, it raises a lot of questions...

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

When you work for others in a makeup lab, chances are you never can make anything the boss doesn't know you're working on, or keeps track of. Maybe something small you could put in your pocket (some Spock ears, maybe) but not suit parts. Too much material needed to make them, so the parts are well accounted for.

Bizarrely enough, I found this brief news story about an "Alien" costume being stolen from the set of "Alien vs. Predator 2" while Googling today. It figures that a random, special-effects item I found would somehow get tied into this discussion of the P/G film...

 

[Crowlogic]

Dfoot

If I could stand to watch the old Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea shows it's be fun to see some of those old monsters in action. But that show got old pretty quick with me after they got the flying sub. It crashed every episode they used it! But even though Star Trek has this cult following and the very first series was my favorite the special effects (for 1966) were OK but just OK. I can remember where Kirk is fighting with somebody and he pushes them into a boulder and the whole boulder lifts and moves! Yeah they left it in the final cut too. But those TV monsters still IMO don't look as good as Patty. I'm somehow left with the idea of a very purpose built suit that went beyond the mere cobbling together of old parts. But assuming it was a cobbled up suit made by Chambers how did the Wah mask find its way into Chambers possession. I would think that they were competiters. You know the old Macy's dosen't tell Gimbles routine.

 

[Bill Munns]

AMM:

"Bizarrely enough, I found this brief news story about an "Alien" costume being stolen from the set of "Alien vs. Predator 2" while Googling today. It figures that a random, special-effects item I found would somehow get tied into this discussion of the P/G film..."

Today, creature suits, props, masks, etc. are big busines for collectors, and so stealing them is an enticing prospect for thieves. 1960's were a bit more innocent, as I recall. The stolen stuff was more often star's wardrobes, and hand props, things with "star appeal" (like "Liz Taylor wore this. . ." sort of thing).

Bill